Long Range Camera's Yes or No in Competition?

[Asa_Yam]

There are, in fact, 1000 yard electronic target systems. They're not an ideal solution yet, since they have the following limitations:
- Some require the bullet to be supersonic at the target.
- Many cannot discriminate between shots from shooters assigned to that target, versus a crossfire. Some systems will actually register shots from adjacent targets.
- Some systems require calibration prior to use. Change calibers or ballistics, and you may need to recalibrate.
- Use of multiple systems requires either laying multiple cables, or a multiplexed signal.
- Such systems are NOT cheap, costing up to $15k per target.

 

[Forum Boss]

Monte,

Yes, electronic scoring systems with monitors at each shooting station are used in outdoor 300m matches at many of the better European ranges. Here are photos from the recently concluded 300m Lapua Europa Cup Championships in Pilzen, CZ:

Below, note the shot marked at 1 o'clock in 9 ring and the "9" score shown on monitor:

 

[Longshot]

Monte,

Yes, electronic scoring systems with monitors at each shooting station are used in outdoor 300m matches at many of the better European ranges. Here are photos from the recently concluded 300m Lapua Europa Cup Championships in Pilzen, CZ:

Which is all well and good. But.... bullet holes at 300M are often visible with conventional optics. So the feed back provided by the down range camera does nothing but possibly refine what the shooter already knows. At 600/1000 yd., the difference is between shooting blind vs. being able to identify shot placement in real time.

Secondly, at 300M. wireless transmission is not a necessity. Meaning you don't have all the frequency cross talk issues or the forest of YAGI's to deal with. This also reduces the costs considerably.

For these reasons, I don't think its valid to compare these European examples to what we do here at 600/1000 yd.

Regards,
Bert

 

[rstreich]

Which is all well and good. But.... bullet holes at 300M are often visible with conventional optics. So the feed back provided by the down range camera does nothing but possibly refine what the shooter already knows. At 600/1000 yd., the difference is between shooting blind vs. being able to identify shot placement in real time.

Secondly, at 300M. wireless transmission is not a necessity. Meaning you don't have all the frequency cross talk issues or the forest of YAGI's to deal with. This also reduces the costs considerably.

For these reasons, I don't think its valid to compare these European examples to what we do here at 600/1000 yd.

Regards,
Bert

I don't quite see your logic here, Bert. The question really boils down to whether or not you should be able to use a down-range sensor to give the shooter immediate feedback of the location of the last shot. So, the electronic scoring system example is spot on.

robert

 

[Longshot]

My logic is simply this. At 300M, the down range camera doesn't provide a really significant advantage in the ability of the shooter to determine POI in real time as compared to conventional optics. At 1000 yards, it's the difference between night and day.

Secondly, the logistics and costs of implementing down range video at 300M are a whole lot less daunting than they are at 3 times that distance. 1000' of wire ain't cheap, but 3000' of the same is a small fortune. So at 600/1000 yards, you're obliged by cost to use radio transmission. So that's maybe 15 - 25 high gain antennea crowded together,remember, these things require line of sight) somewhere in the neighborhood of the target butts for your average National competition. Furthermore, none of the units currently available offer more than a few channels. So how are you going to keep 15 or 20 of these things from tramping all over each other's transmissions?

Given those differences, I don't see any way a valid comparison can be made.

I'm not saying the idea should be abandoned. I am saying it does introduce issues that would not be evident at 300M. Nor am I saying that giving the shooter some means of immediate feedback at 600/1000 yards is bad or good. What I am saying is if every body shows up with such telemetry at a major match, it's going to create problems that haven't yet gotten much air time in this discussion. On the other hand, if only a few people show up so equipped, my feeling is that they're not playing on the same field as the rest of us. I could be wrong about that. It may be that the feedback provided gives no overwhelming advantage at all. But if I'm right, now you've got a serious "fairness" issue.



Regards,
Bert